Pickup guru Roosh V: Unmarried women who don't live with their parents are sluts

I‘ve been trying to avoid reading, much less writing about, the human stain and pickup guru who calls himself Roosh V. But I couldn’t keep myself away from his most recent post, an appalling little exercise called The Most Reliable Way To Tell If A Girl Is A Slut,which turns out to be even more appalling than its title.

Roosh, you see, has figured out a simple one-question test to determine the sluttiness of any woman. Let’s let him explain:

Many girls go to great lengths to hide their slutty past, knowing deep down the low value it conveys for being a suitable long-term partner, but there is one easy indicator that should tell you beyond a reasonable doubt whether she is a slut or not.

Has she lived on her own?

I believe my response to this is best illustrated by the following video of Don Draper saying “what?”

Let me just add:

HAS SHE LIVED ON HER OWN?

Are you exclusively dating high school girls?

If she’s an adult, or at least an adult somewhere in the vicinity of your own age, OF COURSE SHE’S LIVED ON HER OWN.

Yes, yes, I know, given this economy it’s true that some young people – mostly young men – are living at home a little longer these days than in the past, but the overwhelming majority have moved out by their mid-twenties. You’re 35 years old, dude.

Roosh continues:

If she has lived away from her parents for more than a year, she has—at the minimum—slept with many men whose last names she did not know, including one-night stands that did not involve condoms.

Dude, do you even know the first names of the women you sleep with? And haven’t you bragged endlessly about how you “raw dog it” with women? Weren’t you “raw dogging it” even when you were afraid you had AIDS? (Those are rhetorical questions; I already know that the answers are yes, and yes.)

An “independent” girl, removed from the constraints of a nuclear family home and its rules, curfew, and the concern of good parents, will allow the slutty dick gobbler within her to be released.

Women engaging in consensual sex that they enjoy … with someone else? THE END OF THE WORLD. Raping women who are too drunk to consent? According to Roosh himself, it’s “what I do.”

In other words, a natural-born slut who lives on her own will have far more sexual partners than if she lives with parents of average skill who require their daughter to be home by midnight.

Amazing deduction, Sherlock. And if she’s a nun, she’ll probably be having even less sex. The question is: why are you, as 35 year old man, regularly pursuing women young enough to live with their parents?

Give a man leeway in living life and he does great things, but give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.

Really? Here are some young men who have recently started living on their own; I’m not sure that what they are doing could really be described as a “great thing.” (Content Warning: Drunk dudes hitting each other in the head with boards.)

If you want to estimate a girl’s notch count, simply multiple the number of years she has lived on her own by the number 3. If she has lived on campus in college for four years and then moved to a large city for two more, you can rest assured she’s had over 15 cocks in her vagina, and god knows how many more in her mouth.

Not that anyone’s worth is determined by how many penises they’ve had in their vagina, or anywhere else, but I feel I should note that these figures, clearly pulled from the Journal of Roosh’s Own Ass, are completely wrong.

According to people who’ve actually studied human sexuality, his number is just a teensy bit high. And by “teensy” I mean they’re off by an order of magnitude. According to one 2005 study, women in their 30s and early 40s report that they’ve had only 4 male sexual partners, on average, not the 36 to 78 that Roosh’s formula would predict for women who move out on their own at the age of 18 to go to college.

There are definite exceptions for girls who are relationship minded and had boyfriends of more than one year in length, but unless she mentions this, you’re interacting with a slut and should proceed accordingly by escorting her home and asking if you can use her bathroom. Then you must fornicate with her like so many other men.

Yeah, that’s really … creepy. You lie to get into her home, then proceed as if, as a slut, she’s already consented to sex?

You may be thinking the following: “Many Western girls live alone, at least 50%. Does that mean that over 50% of American girls are sluts?” That’s exactly what it means. Independence in women drives them to disempowering sexual behaviors that oppose motherly or wife behaviors. You must be skeptical of girls who have lived alone if you want a serious relationship.

At least if you want a relationship with a creepy, judgmental asshole who thinks like Roosh.

[T]here is absolutely no need for a girl to be independent by living alone without a husband unless you want her holes to be used as a real-life enactment of 50 Shades Of Grey by many strange men.

Well, that is, if you assume that 1) all women can magically find men, whether their father or a husband, who will pay all their bills and 2) Roosh’s opinions about any given woman’s sexual life matter more than the opinions of the woman herself.

If you end up having a daughter of your own, I highly recommend you limit her financial independence before she finds a husband. Refrain from giving her Think & Grow Rich advice that would be better suited for your son. Otherwise, she’ll become a slut who gives it up to any man who dances a good clown jig.

So: prepare your daughter to be dependent for her very existence on dudes who think like Roosh.

That may be the worst parenting advice I’ve ever heard. Then again, it’s from Roosh.

You see this kind of sour-grapes “they’re all worthless sluts” rationalization all the time on PUA blogs. Roosh is trying to justify to his audience why he never has sex. It’s not that the low-hanging fruit find him repulsive and won’t have anything to do with him, it’s that being a high-value dude, naturally he only goes after rare, high-value (and therefore unattainable) women. So it really isn’t his fault that he keeps striking out. Laid in NYC’s “liquid gold” schtick amounted to the same thing. It’s all a public performance for the benefit of their followers.

By the way, Laid in NYC appears to have hung up his blog, stating that the quality of writing was going downhill (AH HA HA HA HA HA) and, with too much manuresphere competition, he was having trouble monetizing it.

Okay, now I’m really confused. If the game (LOL) thing worked, and they’re chasing “sluts”* then doesn’t that indicate that the “game” gives the dude *worse than chance* odds? Anything that reduces your odds to below chance, for a desired outcome, should be avoided. It’s like they see “game” as a gambit – do it enough times and they’ll “luck” onto sex. But the thing is, “game” is so repulsive that it actually *increases* the number of approaches they have to do.

If they worked on their personalities, their attitudes, and their expectations, they would be happier people and more likely to find a suitable partner(s). But no, they approach this as though they are leveling a D&D character where putting more points into charisma means less points into intellect.

* apparently defined as women who have sex with at least 3 guys a year, but this definition changes depending on which astrological sign is in the ascendent, the phase of the moon, and how many days since payday.

I like how Doosh’s slutty girls give him exactly what he says his Game is made for – easy, commitment-free sex – but he still finds a reason to complain. Maybe because the women he wants are logically impossible to exist: virgins who easily open up their legs and are also his exclusive-use sex slaves. Dude, pick one.

“Give a man leeway in living life and he does great things, but give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.”

About that… what does this statement do for the assertion that men NEED sex ALL THE TIME and women are all but sexless which is why these guys have to work so hard at their Pickup Games to get them in the sack? Do they not see even the tiniest little flaw in their thought stream of ‘women are abominably terrible, we deserve to stick our dicks in them, but they don’t want us to so they must be sluts/whores who spend all their time chasing cock which prevents them from doing anything useful, while we spend all our time on the worthwhile pastime of trying to stick our dicks in them because they are such sluts/whores that they won’t have sex with us…’ wait, what? The hypocritical double-standard contradiction conundrum hurts my brain.

@Grumpy/coffee – Judging by my young friends, the new thing, at least for comments directed at relatively inexperienced gay men, is that they are DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WOMEN. I want to blame Christina Ricci; who knew that The Opposite of Sex would linger in this way?

At second hand, it’s impossible to tell if it’s mostly sour grapes or if the women playing the D card have bought into the idea that one’s moral worth is directly proportional to the number of genders to which one is attracted. I’m up to about five different comebacks, but I don’t know how many of them would actually do to be uttered.

@vaiyt Oh… you summed that up very neatly. So according to these guys everything women do is terrible, even if they are doing two things that directly oppose each other. It is only sensible people who find MRA ‘logic’ confusing.

@Jodie, I get into the double standard conundrum myself, but I think these men actually see some logic in it. If you read the “Community Beliefs” which are about half way down the Roosh “About” page, they theorize that men and women are not equal, and that the double standard has a biological reason to exist.

So I guess their reasoning goes more or less like this:

1. Women should not sleep around, they should try to get married and raise families.
2. Men need an incentive to get married and raise families: said incentive is provided by meek, humble, devoted women.
3. In the absence of such incentives, men will do all they can to avoid marriage and children, and sleep around themselves, with “sluts”, which are horrible entities, but they do serve the purpose of giving a man sexual satisfaction.

So, you see, everything falls into place. Women who sleep around are refusing their role of “moderators” of male sexuality, they don’t give incentive to men to settle down and raise families, and are the main culprits for the fall of the western civilization.

It kind of has its own terrifying internal logic, if you regard sex as an inescapable biological imperative, and not a wonderful activity meant to give happiness and joy to the people who do it.

Wow, that’s a lot of extrarelational/marital sex I’ve been completely missing out on for a combined equivalent of two years, the past few months of which I’ve been long distance married!

Not like my husband and I didn’t work this out years in advance so that I could get a start on my career while my husband is doing military training and switching bases multiple times in a year. Career, shcreer! It’s all about the penis.

Guess my primarily male coworkers and clients were all just too beta to catch my interest, because clearly I’m a slut-in-waiting and can’t think of anything but the penis I don’t have right now.

(OK, that last statement kind of made me puke in my mouth a bit. More because I like my coworkers than because I dislike them)

Seriously, though, this is so far out of left field that I can’t do anything but laugh at how bizarre and blatantly misogynistic his line of thinking is.

(speaking of my long distance husband, he is formally coming home next week and will be here for a few weeks before his final, short round of training – after that we can finally make plans to live together when he’s on his base! So excited! Hope I get over this damn cold by then…)

These guys want to use sex to hurt women because they hate women for not wanting them. The only women who will have Roosh of their own volition (if there are any women having consensual sex with him) are women he admits, are women who just want to fuck a man and any man will do. If it’s closing time and Roosh is there, he’ll do. They don’t want to talk to him, share their interests and hobbies with him, date him or even have casual sex with him more than a couple times. He’s so determined that he is harming them, taking away their worth and somehow making them less attractive so that those women will have to be as lonely as he is one day. It’s pure wish fulfillment. If she doesn’t want him for anything but a quick fuck, he’s going to tell himself that he’s somehow ruining her ability to have meaningful relationships in the future by being that quick fuck. I think he’s trying to project his feelings of rejection. He’s a rapist because even worse than a woman who will make do with what’s available by fucking Roosh is a woman who won’t. He hates those women most. How dare any woman exist independently, taking lovers when it pleases them and sometimes falling in love and having committed relationships that he cannot have? Those other men are getting attention, affection and respect that he is not, so those grapes are so sour. They have to be. If they aren’t, then Roosh would have to admit what a bitter, miserable, hate filled, lonely, unattractive man he is. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with being lonely, unhappy or unattractive. I’m saying that his ego could not handle admitting those things to himself.

So, he keeps trying to hurt women, hating them as hard as he can, making up rationalizations for his hate and resenting men who don’t.

@LBT: would you believe I hadn’t thought of that angle? Yes, instead of “I’ve run out of quests, darn I’ll have to kill loads of things” (hello vanilla WoW, 40s-level character), it’s “there’s nothing I want to do more with my social life than meet women I never want to see again and have bad sex with them/rape* them”.

* I know people use the term “date rape” but I agree that the date word should be dropped. It’s rape, how it happened is irrelevant.

* I know people use the term “date rape” but I agree that the date word should be dropped. It’s rape, how it happened is irrelevant.

Warning: Possible Rape Trigger

I do not think that I agree, pallygirl. Yes, rape is rape is rape, but I think that there is another emotional dimension to the word when you add “date” to it. I have had the experience, and being raped by someone you have some knowledge of, whom you have no reason to suspect and every reason to hope that you will have a good time with, has the added benefit of making you feel like you are some kind of idiot. As if your judgement is so bad that you actually go out on a date with a RAPIST!

I have been raped by a date friend and by a stranger. For me, anyway, the former was worse and emotionally more charged than the later.

Okay, late to the thread and playing catch up. Odd thing about starting work… I actually have to work! And I’ll get paid!

Exciting.

When I’m not working at work though, It does have a lovely internet connection.

Also, I have upgraded to living alone from past living arrangements with originally 3 young lady flatmates, then one ‘guy old enough to be my dad, but not my dad’ flatmate. There were no shenanigans or shared beds with any of them.

I now live alone.

By Roosh-LogicTM, I’m trying to decide whether my slut-level has increased due to “ladies living alone must be promiscuous because reasons” or decreased due to “YOU WERE LIVING IN A BUILDING WITH A GUY YOU WEREN’T RELATED TO!“

Not sure if this subject has ever been breached here but does anybody know why Roosh V, being known to have traveled to Poland, wears nicknames that sound so hilarious in Polish? “Valizadek” means “stinky butt” and “Roosh Vorek” means “move your sack”.

I understand it’s short from his actual (Iranian-American) name Daryush Valizadeh. He probably doesn’t mind the Polish connotations, considering his “I’m so tough i just love it when everybody thinks I’m a clownish asshole” schtick.

It kind of has its own terrifying internal logic, if you regard sex as an inescapable biological imperative, and not a wonderful activity meant to give happiness and joy to the people who do it.

Yeah, this is why it’s impossible to have a conversation with these people. It’s all based on ridiculous evopsych lock and key crap, and they’re certainly not going to give that up. With that foundation, a rational discussion about sexuality is not going to happen.

“I feel sorry for Roosh; he could be enjoying his life so much more if he realized he was in a cage of his own making.”

This comment reminded me of Vladimir Nabokov’s comment on the genesis of his novel “Lolita”, which was mentioned a bit in a recent thread. He read about an experiment in a zoo where they gave a primate (a chimp, I think, but I’m not sure) drawing materials and what he produced was a drawing of the bars of his cage — that was the origin of his nymphet-obsessed putz Humbert Humbert.

Uh, Roosh is full of it and I know because I had a front row seat for the sexual revolution. I went to college away from home, back in the 70s after the pill and before AIDS, where we had dorms with 24 hour intervisitation (no chaperones). This was a 4 year school and most relationships, if a girl even had a boyfriend, were long term and some even became marriages. Many girls didn’t have a boyfriend, or went a long time without one. The few girls who did rack up a bit of a body count did so not because they were hungry for sex, but because they were looking for love in all the wrong places (and being taken advantage of by college age proto-Rooshes). And even then, the numbers were nowhere what Roosh is saying. I was in the dorms, so we all saw what went on. It was nothing like what Roosh imagines.

@scarlettpipstrelle Your comments seem generally correct but there is one point that makes me uncomfortable. My wife went to college in that time period and her perspective is quite a bit different. She wasn’t “hungry for sex” but did “rack up a bit of a body count”, and she would reject the idea that she was “looking for love in all the wrong places” and, particularly, that she was “being taken advantage of by college age proto-Rooshes.” It was a time when a young woman could indulge in sexual experimentation and adventure with fairly small risk of adverse consequences. My wife would claim that she exercised sexual agency (though she might not use those words) and made her choices with her eyes open and accepted full responsibility for her choices. Also, she generally chose men who were not “operators” and her “body count” included a few virgins.
In other words, your comments tend to accept the idea of the man looking for sex and the women being passive, and that is not necessarily so.

I’m really disturbed by the assumption that in the house means in the bed. The “Can I use your bathroom” gambit would totally (probably) get a guy inside the building, because I know what it’s like to really need to go, and long drives, and argh.

It’s a little terrifying to know that there exist dudes who would assume that means sex is possible, because NO.

You can use my bathroom, if your trousers get soaking wet because of a hiking fail, you can borrow a pair and throw yours in my dryer.

BUT NONE OF THIS MEANS YOU CAN TOUCH ME OR ANYTHING!!!!!

I highly doubt I would ever go on a hike, much less a date, with someone as generally skeevy as Roosh, but now I think I might need to be a little more paranoid…

I’m just reporting on the ones I saw and knew about. They would get their hopes up for a relationship, things would founder, and they’d be miserable. I didn’t know anybody who was having fun just experimenting. Maybe that’s just my sample. Maybe it was a function of the times. This was in the early to mid 70s. I had friends who’d had a hard time at home, and were hoping for something better. Sometimes people took advantage of them, and not just sexually. To their credit, the guys didn’t all pile on. Many of them had a reserve and a maturity far beyond what we see in the MRAs we assail here. BTW several of those who racked up a body count ended up getting married the old fashioned way, having kids, the whole 9 yards. But back then you could reinvent yourself way easier than people can now. Even Robert de Grimston, the head of the Process Church was able to walk away and ended up being some sort of executive for ATT&T. Nowadays, it’s hard to make it through the applicant tracking software.

I genuinely do appreciate hearing from someone with lived experience and their perspective. That said, I think you have found yourself in a first rule of holes situation. I don’t think pointing out that some of the women with more partners in college ended up getting married–as though that were some kind of surprise–will do anything to defray the impression that you may have unhelpful stereotypes about what female sexuality is like.

I’m downright confused at this point, tbh. Yes, it is quite common for women to have sex with a bunch of different men when they are young and then settle down into monogamy later. It’s common for men too. Why is anyone acting as if this were some sort of revelation?

I think that there is another emotional dimension to the word when you add “date” to it.

I think I see where you are coming from, and it’s the reason I reject the term “date rape”. It is a term that is used by many (media, date rapist apologists) to downplay the seriousness of the rape,* and used to try to discredit the survivor.

Not all rapes that don’t involve strangers are date rapes. I was raped, twice, by my then de facto** partner. He got home late both times, and woke me up to rape me. I cried the whole way through both times. The second time he charming told me, while he was doing it, that he wanted me to have his baby.

Both times were rape, not date rape. Both times had an emotional dimension to it. Therefore the term “date rape” doesn’t include all rapes with a non-stranger.

* in NZ, the crime is sexual violation, which is defined as rape or unlawful sexual connection, section 128 of http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM329051 refers. There is nothing in the definition of the crime that refers to the relationship or non-relationship between the offender and the survivor. The only reason the date factor would be brought in would be by the Defence, to argue against “without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents”, person B being the survivor, using the “date” dimension to argue reasonable grounds for consent. How is this helpful for survivors who wish to prosecute?

** not sure what you call this in the US/Canada. Is it common law marriage? No marriage, and no civil union ceremony.

The main motivation for this redefinition of the law, IIRC, was to move away from focusing on the technical definition of rape. In NZ law, “unlawful sexual connection” is just as bad as rape and now is the very same crime – this change followed a few unsettling cases in which defence lawyers threw doubt on rape charges by grilling the victim on the stand and having them admit to being unsure of actual penetration by a penis. A legitimate defence tactic, and one which any professional lawyer should pursue in court with the law as then written, but precisely the last thing a survivor or the justice system needed.

Because it contradicts the MRA prediction/prescription that women ruin themselves by having a lot of sex. It didn’t seem to matter either way – I saw no correlation in how people ended up by what they did in their youth. It’s the MRAs who think that sexuality affects a woman like driving affects tire tread. Actually it was a bit surprising because attitudes towards women and sexuality were still having a hangover from the 50s. There were still separate job ads for women vs. men into the seventies (it was legal that long) and some companies’ job applications wanted to know when your periods started, how regular they were, and when was your last? Some Ivy league schools still were taking nude photos of coeds through the sixties (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-league-nude-posture-photo-scandal.html). And in the Ann Landers/Dear Abby columns, someone would periodically ask if a woman could wear a white dress for her wedding if she was no longer a virgin. Really, it was like that. I guess you had to be there and live in those times to understand how weird attitudes towards women still were.

I have been thinking of Roosh’s “philosophy of women” for the last couple of days, because it seems to me that when there is such an obvious chasm of inconsistency in someone’s views on a subject, there is bound to be a disguised motive which cannot be openly admitted, and I believe I have found it..

I think that Roosh’s underlying belief is quite simple. The first step of it is the tired old virgin/slut dichotomy. But the second step is something that many men MAY think but few are willing/stupid enough to say openly — that once you can classify a woman as a slut, you are free to do whatever you want with her without any moral qualms. “Give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.” See, she probably won’t admit it, but all she really wants in life is a cunt full of cock, and when you fuck her heartlessly, you really are satisfying her deepest needs. What a useful belief for a PUA. The question that then occurs is “Aren’t “nice girls” who live with their parents merely sluts without opportunity, who are therefore also fully entitled to Roosh’s ministrations?” So all women are sluts at heart and therefore fair game, it seems.
But it may go even further. After all, if women are all thinly disguised “slutty dick gobbler[s]”, who only want a cunt full of cock, then is it even possible to rape them? After all, if you are giving them what they really want regardless of whether they are willing to admit it (i.e., consent), how can it be rape?
Seems like a remarkably convenient view of women for a guy who wants to fuck whoever he wants when ever she wants. “See, Judge, she might have said ‘No’, but really she was just begging for it.”

I blame Freudian pop psychology – everybody thought they had the inside scoop on people’s motives. Everybody was an amateur psychologist. That meant that everything had to be questioned for deep, interior motives that often turned out to be ridiculous in broad daylight.

I mean, it is possible to be fully an adult – even Roosh’s age – while not living on your own.
Because disabled people exist, and some of us can’t live independently.
It happens, it doesn’t make us less adult, and there’s a general implication in society that it does, which this post ends up playing into a bit.
Sigh.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.